Your Guiding Light Through The Progressive Fog

Archive

Monthly Archives: April 2015

The 2016 Presidential Race is probably the most important race in recent history. I know I have said that for many races, but listen, 2016 is a pivotal cross road, it represents a choice. The People of The United States can either choose to continue down the destructive path to mediocrity that progressives such as President Obama have set us down, or we can choose a new path. To take this new path requires a new type of candidate, and a new process of thinking.

I have long heard people complain that they do not care about politics because Democrat or Republican it does not matter, it all ends the same way, more spending, more debt, more taxes, and no one getting ahead. Except for a few exceptions they are right. The choice at the ballet box basically boils down to do I want tyrannical government in the form of Fascism, or Communism. Both grow government, both usurp power from us, both choices end up with us being subjugated. It is hard for people to get excited about a race when the choice is between “getting slapped in the face” or “getting back handed in the face”.

Now of course Republicans claim that they carry the mantel of the Conservative Banner, they are the party that will stand up to big government. Of course, when push comes to shove men like John McCain and John Boehner will always crumble and accept an increase in the size of government. They claim it is in the better interest of the country, next time, the next time they will fight. The next time rolls around and wouldn’t you know it, they stab us in the back again.

The debt is over 18 trillion dollars, millions are being forced to part time labor status, our cities are on fire, and our President Plays golf. To right the ship, to save the nation, 2016 must be much more than a choice between Democrat or Republican. To save the nation, the decision must be between Progressives and Conservatives. There must be a clear choice, something in that for the last two elections has not existed.

Being a limited government conservative, is what many people would call a libertarian. In political circles libertarians are looked at like lower evolved life forms. They hold idiotic notions like “let people choose for themselves”, or “the people have not given the government the power to…”. This insane “Radical” concept scares both Democrats and Republicans alike. Why?

The answer is really very simple, the Democrat Party is filled with radical progressives, the GOP Establishment is dominated by progressives. Progressives desire power over the “little people”, who are too stupid to survive without the government. The people cannot be trusted to make the right choice, so the government must make it for them. Sadly the political argument of the 21st century has devolved into who should make decisions for the ignorant masses. This concept sickens me. However it is one that is essential to the survival of the progressive movement. They thrive by belittling people, taking entire portions of the population, robbing them of their dignity, and making them dependent upon the government for their very survival.

I know many people will call me a bigot, but look at the inner cities. For decades progressives have been promising to lift these people up out of poverty. They condemn anyone who champions the concept of pulling one’s self up by one’s boot straps. Instead they promise them that soon they will be saved from poverty, and whilst the people cheer they set fire to the boot factory.

Look at the issue on the southern border. Millions of people cross the border illegally every year. Rather than solve try and actually solve the issue progressives have transformed it into a perpetual political game. One that promise huge annual returns. Progressives on one side of the aisle threaten mass deportation, and call anyone who opposes blanket amnesty a racist. They reward those who came here illegally, and punish those who came through the front door by lumping them in with criminals. Progressives on the other side make it an issue of shutting down the border, and locking the United States off. Both missing the bigger picture, and dividing the nation, something that progressives thrive on.

Establishment Republicans and the Democrat Party all think that a new law solves the problem. The fact is that many of the problems in this country have evolved because they have passed too many laws. The problems that arises from each laws unintended consequences require a new law to fix them, which creates more unintended consequences. It is a vicious cycle, one that pits neighbor against neighbor.

It is time we bring new blood into the mix, cast out men like John McCain, John Boehner, and Jeb Bush and bring forth someone who will actually offer up a valid choice in the 2016 election. Look the issue on the border is not that we don’t have enough laws, the problem is that we have too many. It is too hard to come in the front door. No one talks about making legal immigration easier because it takes away a campaign issue. Democrats cannot campaign on evil Republicans kicking down doors and deporting parents while their babies are left to die in the streets. Republicans cannot campaign on securing the border.

Given the choice between a progressive Democrat and a progressive Republican the American People will choose a progressive Democrat. We saw that in 2008, and in 2012. In 2016 it is time for the GOP to send up a real conservative, a small government conservative, someone who the main stream media might call “libertarian”. Such a candidate could unite the country and pave the way towards future glory.

Look we have tried the progressive approach to things, just pass laws, make things illegal, strip people of their dignity, and it has not worked. Do you want a candidate that respects our God given rights, or do you want one that is going to re-up the Patriot Act like President Obama did. Do you want a candidate who respects a parents right to choose how their child is educated, or do you want one that thinks the Federal Government should choose like Jeb Bush does. Do you want a candidate who will restore your privacy rights, or do you want one that will support the NSA spying program? Do you want a candidate that will respect property rights, or one that agrees with the theft that took place in the General Motors Buy Out?

The people in this country are tired of more government being the answer for every problem. We have seen the damage brought about by big government, the housing collapse of 2008, Obamacare, the NSA spying scandal, it is time for a change. I remember listening to President Obama when he was running for President in 2008. He campaigned against a four billion dollar deficit, he campaigned against government spying on American citizens, that was part of why so many people where so excited about him. Of course, I knew better, I knew who he was and what he stood for. He wasn’t some political unknown as the GOP Establishment would have you believe. President Obama could very easily be identified as a radical progressive.

That desire for freedom, to get government out of our lives, is something that can and will unite the nation. The concept of limited government, is one that most rational and respectful people understand and agree with. Look at how many problems in this country could be solved if people looked to themselves for solutions rather than demanding solutions from the government.

Gay Marriage, progressives argue that it is a choice between either the government forcing people to accept it, or denying it to people. I do not recall seeing where The People gave the government the privilege to regulate marriage. It is not a power expressly given to the federal government in the Constitution, thus making it one reserved to the states. I want a candidate who will campaign on that. The argument is not about whether or not gay marriage should be legal, but rather whether or not the federal government has the power to make that choice. By definition the issue of Gay Marriage is a State issue. I am not weighing in on whether or not it should be legal, let the states decide that, I am weighing in on whether or not the federal government has the power to regulate it. I want the candidate who is willing to say “The issue of gay marriage is one that is close to the hearts of the American People. I however see no evidence, nor justification within the powers granted to the federal government by the People of the United States to act on the issue of regulating Marriage.”

I personally do no agree with Gay Marriage, however, I really do not care. If you are gay and want to get married, I don’t care, just don’t force me to be a part of it. What you do in your own home is your business. I have gay friends, and it does not bother me. They respect my views, and I respect theirs. They are called opinions, and everyone has them. The issue has become this national crisis not because of bigotry, but because of progressives trying to play God. One side wants to bring the power of the federal government down on anyone who dares oppose Gay Marriage, while the other side seeks to deny it. Both sides are assuming moral authority they do not have, and are plotting to use power they do not have.

The legalization of Marijuana comes to mind. Whether you are for it, or against it, there must be an acceptance of the concept of the rule of law. I personally do not believe the government should be allowed to tell me what I can or cannot consume. They allow tobacco products, but Marijuana is not. All I can think of is the damage brought to the country by progressives banning Alcohol. However, whether or not it should be legal is not the debate that I find important. I want a candidate who is going to stand up and enforce federal law. Currently Marijuana is illegal in the United States. The Federal Government has been granted the privilege of regulating interstate commerce. Thus these states that have legalized weed, are acting outside the law. I want a candidate who will look at the issue of Marijuana and say, “The issue of the legalization of Marijuana is one that will require serious attention. However, states cannot supersede federal law.”

I should point out that I want a candidate who will remove the federal restrictions on Marijuana. Let individual states decide what they want to do. If California wants to be the pot capital of the world let them. If Ohio wants nothing to do with weed, let them. People who want to smoke pot can move to California, people who don’t want to be around it can move to Ohio. Let the people decide. That is something a progressive cannot allow.

The tax code, oh the tax code, nothing inspires more political rage than the tax code. The estate tax, capital gains tax, property tax, income tax, tax on soda, tax on cigarets, tax on gasoline, tax on drivers licenses, corporate income tax, taxes, taxes, taxes. It seem that the government has yet to find something it does not love to tax. Progressives love to use the tax code to manipulate the economy, punish political enemies and reward political allies. Look at President Obama he rails against the corporate welfare that the oil industry receives, about 2.8 Billion dollars a year. He is right, the oil industry should not be getting this type of tax cut/credit/voodoo whatever you want to call it. Unfortunately, President Obama isn’t actually against corporate welfare, in fact he is a rather big supporter of it. He has paved the way for $90,000,000,000.00 a year in “corporate welfare” for so called green energy. That is 90 billion dollars a year, or to put it another way, almost 50 years of oil subsidies.

I want a candidate who is going to stop playing games with the tax code. I want a candidate who is going to stop using the federal government to pick winners and losers. This government interference is nothing more than a way to punish people who do not behave the way some elitist in Washington decides you should act. If you do not conform, then they are going to take your money from you. I want a candidate who is going to say enough is enough. I want a candidate who is willing to say no more, and is going to end these tax code tricks. No more taxing people for not using windmills, no more taxing people for buying a soda. The Federal Government’s was given the right to levy taxes for one purpose to generate revenue. It was not given the power to tax so to punish political enemies, or to force the citizenry to conform.

I do not want a candidate who is going to cut taxes, I want a candidate who is going to gut the IRS. I want a candidate who is going to simplify the tax code. I am a huge supporter of a flat tax, or more preferably a fair tax. I am against this concept that because you make more money, a greater percentage of your income is owed to the government. I want a candidate who is going to stand up for equal protection before the law. I always hear that everyone should pay their fair share. I agree. It is ridiculous that 1% of the population earns just 18.87% of the income in this country and is then forced to pay 37.8% of the income taxes in this country. Oh wait, I forgot, progressives, I have to use progressive logic. It is perfectly okay that 1% of the population percentage of tax burden is double that of its percentage of income, because that evil one percent is rich. I want a candidate who is going to say “The government should not be using the tax code to manipulate the population.” I want a candidate who is going to do away with credits, cuts, and subsidies, and simplifies the tax code. Everyone pays 10%, no credits, no tricks. 10% of your income goes to the government, regardless of if you make 10 dollars or a 1,000,000.

Think about it, a libertarian candidate, a limited government conservative can stand toe to toe with a progressive like Hillary Clinton and take them on with the social issues. Hillary Clinton can attack the candidate about Gay Marriage, the candidate does not have to get sucked into whether or not they support gay marriage. Instead they can rely on their principles and respond with “How arrogant are you, assuming that the government has the power to regulate marriage”. A limited Government Conservative is safe from the gaffs that cripple progressive wolves in Conservative Garb, like John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Jeb Bush. Men who just pretend to be conservative, but lack a true understanding of the principles.

A limited Government Conservative can unite the nation. Bring people together under the concept of rule of law. End government overreach, while at the same time restoring liberty. These are things that apply to people a crossed all aspects of the American spectrum. Find a candidate like that, someone who will fight to end progressive overreach, rather than just abate it, and I guarantee that not only will Hillary Clinton be defeated in 2016, but America will be saved from this path of destruction and misery.

A new poll has been released by Quinnipiac that bodes well for the Kentucky Senator. According to the poll Rand Paul is seen by voters as the most trustworthy candidate. This is something for people to consider going into this race. Especially given the last six years of back room deals and out and out lies (If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor comes to mind). The results of the poll are as follows:

As you can see Rand Paul blows the competition out of the water. Now of course Establishment zealots are going to point out “um… apparently you can’t read, Jeb Bush scored only one point lower than Rand Paul.” This is true, Jeb Bush did have 43% of respondents claim that he was trustworthy, however that does not somehow transform this laughable progressive oddity into a viable candidate. Yes Jeb Bush did have 43% of respondents claim that he was trustworthy, the problem though comes when we look at how many individuals said that he wasn’t trustworthy. Jeb Bush has only a 3 point spread between those who distrust him and those who trust him. That is most likely within the margin of error for the poll. Potentially more people could actually think he is a lying sack of crap. Rand Paul on the other hand has the highest score for being trustworthy, as well as the largest spread between those who do and do not trust him.

Basically what it boils down to, listen tot he American People, we need to be able to trust those we send to DC, and I am not saying that we should trust President Obama, or John Boehner. What I am saying is that it is time that we send people to DC that we can trust. The 536 people who reside in those marbled halls of DC are sent there to represent us, we have entrusted them with a great honor. It is time we ensure that we are sending people there who are worthy of that trust.

It is going to be far easier to win people over with a candidate that is for the most part trusted, than it is going to be with a Hillary Clinton’s door mat Jeb Bush. Rand Paul is gaining momentum, be prepared to watch the establishment attacks fly. If you want to restore the nation, Rand Paul is looking like a viable candidate, if you want to follow the Establishment who has given us John McCain, and Mitt Romney well vote for Jeb, I am sure you will be glad you gave him your vote when Hillary is sworn in.

Senator Rand Paul is running for President in 2016, he is one of three viable candidates in the GOP Field (Ted Cruz and Scott Walker round out the list). Last week, Senator Paul received the best endorsement to date. I should point out, I doubt that is how the statement was intended.

Senator John McCain, you know the guy who successfully defeated Barack Obama in 2008…. oh sorry, the man who was trampled by Barack Obama on his way to the White House, declared on Wednesday April 22nd, that Senator Rand Paul was the worst of the 20 individuals competing for the GOP nomination. Senator McCain said that he has “no doubt” Rand Paul is at the bottom of the GOP field. Senator McCain’s comments about Rand Paul have really changed my thoughts about not only Senator Paul, but the entire Republican Primary. Honestly after hearing Senator McCain denounce Rand Paul how could you do anything other than stand with Rand?

When I hear progressive like John McCain attack Rand Paul all I can think is “shut up and sit down”. The miserable Senator from Arizona John McCain is a back stabbing progressive thug who quite honestly would be far more comfortable in the Democrat Party than in the GOP. He is a dinosaur, a relic of a bygone age, he represents everything that is wrong with the Republican Party. He is a big government progressive who would rather throw the country under a bus than give up an ounce of the power that the federal government has usurped from the States and the People.

Honestly what makes John McCain think that he has any creditability when it comes to who should be the Republican Candidate in the 2016 Presidential Race? Perhaps it comes from his long record of winning presidential races? I mean look at his track record, look how well he did when he ran for President in 2000. His policy of attacking conservative community leaders, and his “maverick” attitude managed to win him seven out of 50 state in the Republican Primary. Seven, one of which just happened to be his home state, so, really he managed to impress people in only six states. But hey they were six power house deeply conservative states, that prove that he knows how to win. States like Michigan, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. I mean with these “deeply” conservative states swinging his way it is no wonder he won the 2000 GOP Nomination… wait he didn’t win did he…. no George W. Bush won.

Okay so he lost in 2000, but it was a close race, I mean 43 to seven, he gave it a good show. Now of course we all know that with that resounding success under his belt he would run again in 2008, I mean he clearly carried the banner for conservatives within the GOP. Oh and run he did. Senator McCain ran on a platform of “bipartisan cooperation”, “Being able to reach a crossed the aisle”, oh and my favorite his reputation as being the “Maverick of the Senate”. Now we all know that McCain won the GOP Nomination in 2008, and that was clearly because he was the most qualified candidate…. right…. I mean it had nothing to do with the Establishment (people who he ran against in 2000) feared having a candidate like Romney. His victory in 2008 had nothing to do with Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul splitting the conservative vote making allowing him to walk to victory. But I digress.

So he won the primary in 2008, he then went on to become the 44th President of The United States….. wait sorry I forgot he lost in a landslide election to Barack Obama. I mean Senator McCain did about as well against Barack Obama as he did against George W. Bush in 2000. President Obama won 365 electoral votes to McCain’s 173. So President Obama more than doubled the electoral votes, I mean honestly, does that really disqualify John McCain as a legitimate figure for discussing presidential politics?

Oh let us not forget that Senator McCain also back the highly successful campaign of Mitt Romney in 2012…. errr…. well Romney did do much better against President Obama than McCain did. I mean Romney had to run against a seated President, and did better than McCain who was running against a complete political unknown, but honestly can you hold that against the guy?

Senator John McCain is a disgrace to the United States Senate. He will stab Republicans in the back the first chance he gets, if he thinks it will help him politically. He’s thrown Sarah Palin, his one time running mate, under the bus several times because he thought it would give him a political edge. Progressive scum like John McCain have no right, no creditability, no logical argument that lends any of their view points about presidential politics any form of legitimacy.

Basically John McCain telling the American People that Rand Paul is the worst Republican Candidate is akin to Chris Christie praising Weight Watchers for his success at losing weight. President Obama has a better chance at winning a golf game than Senator McCain does of picking a winning candidate for President.

So when I hear progressive scum bags like John McCain say that Rand Paul is the worst candidate in the Republican field, I take note, I listen. Because if the Spineless Backstabbing Dis-Honorable Senator from Arizona John McCain loathes him, well than he is probably the best bet that the GOP has as winning the White House. More importantly however, sense the Miserable Senator from Arizona John McCain despises Rand Paul, I can only conclude that Senator Paul is the best man for the job when it comes to restoring this great nation to its former glory.

When I hear progressives like John McCain go after someone like Rand Paul, I know it is because they fear him, they fear what he can do. Senator Paul is a clear and present threat to the Old Washington Order. He is a man who is willing to go after the sacred cafes of the Establishment. He is a man who can unite the nation, and destroy a century of progressive ground work designed to keep us fighting amongst ourselves while rats each away at our liberty and freedom.

So John McCain says that Rand Paul is the worst, if you are a conservative that can only mean one thing, Stand with Rand.

So April 15 was, as always Tax Day. The day that we the people give the government our money. This year, April 15, saw massive protest of people demanding that the Minimum Wage be more than doubled to $15.00 an hour. This is something that this conglomerate claims is necessary because everyone deserves to make a “living wage”. I want now to take a serious look at this push to raise the Minimum Wage. I will break it down, by looking at the numbers, how many people make minimum wage, who are they? I want to look at the actual affect of raising the minimum wage, will the increase in wages actually result in improving these individuals lives? Finally I will discuss just who it is that is actually pushing for this increase in the minimum wage.

Understanding the validity of raising the minimum wage begins at understanding just who it is that makes minimum wage. Seeing the protests in the streets would lead some to believe that a large portion of the population is being forced to exist solely on minimum wage. If this is truly the case, then there is an credible issue plaguing the American People. I personally would not be shocked to find out that in the stagnate economy brought about by the failed economic policies of President Obama, and business being crippled by Obamacare, that the number of people making minimum wage has sky rocketed. So I turned to the federal government for answers.

According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics in 2014 there were a total of 77,207,000 hourly paid workers in the United States. Of that number a very small number of people actually earn the minimum wage. The number of people 16 and older that work for minimum wage makes up 3.9% of the hourly paid workers, 3.9% (the actual percentage is 3.875 they rounded up). That works out to about 2,992,000people nationwide, or about .94% of the American population are making minimum wage. Of those people 48% are young adults ages 16-24. Those are mostly made up of high school and college students. The remaining 52% are 25 and older.
It is the 25 and older age group that most people focus on. These are the people who are likely trying to survive on minimum wage. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics there are currently 1,549,000 people ages 25 and up are earning minimum wage. That works out to 2.5% of the age group. Compare that to 9.4% of people 16-24 who earn minimum wage. Very few adults are earning minimum wage.

So the number of people making minimum wage is actually infinitely small in comparison when compared to the rest of the population (.94%). Now that we understand that a make up of the people who earn minimum wage, and we understand that they make up a very small portion of the working public, the question becomes will raising the minimum wage actually help these people? What would the effects on raising the minimum wage be on our economy? These are questions that must be answered, before one can make a legitimate decision on raising the minimum wage.

The basic premise behind the idea of raising the minimum wage is a simple, elegant, and very easy to understand. The government says you have to give people a raise. These people then have more money which they can use to support themselves, their family, and improve their lives. This theory is all well and good, however, like most progressive ideas it is horribly flawed. Like all progressive ideas it places the blame for income inequality at the feet of businesses, it assumes that wages are just plucked from thin air. It also assumes that wage, prices, and inflation exists within a vacuum. A simple understanding of economics is enough to reveal the folly of raising the minimum wage.

Economics is the study of the relationship of curves, changing one variable changes the relationship between the curves. Understanding the relationship between these curves proves that wage, price, and inflation are fundamentally linked. You cannot change one without affecting the rest. These relationships are changed via market force, altering the minimum wage is an artificial change that has a major impact on the markets.

By now I hope that most people are aware that the primary argument against raising the minimum wage deals with prices. A business exists to make money, it does not matter what business it is, its sole purpose is to make money. Microsoft does not exist to sell the Windows Operating system, it exists to earn a profit, this goal is achieved through selling the Windows operating system. McDonald’s does not exist to sell hamburgers, it exists to make money, it achieves this goal through selling hamburgers. It is because of this single purpose that raising the minimum wage has a negative impact on the very people it is intended to help.

Raising the minimum wage increases the cost of doing business, thus it decreases profits. Now in the progressive mindset, this is okay, because the company exists to create jobs, not make money. However, businesses that exist to create jobs do not last long, as they run out of money. To maintain revenue streams, and thus survive, companies have limited options to survive an increase in the minimum wage. They can either raise prices or cut costs. If they raise prices, they risk driving customers away. If they cut costs they have to either reduce quality, which again pushes customers away, or sadly reduce the price of man hours. Sense the government forced a wage increase, the only way to do this is either cutting hours, or cutting workers. None of these options bodes well for those making minimum wage. Yes they are making more money per hour, but they are working less hours, or they aren’t working at all.

This argument is very easy to understand, but unfortunately it is flawed, more correctly it is incomplete. It fails, in the same way that the progressive argument for raising minimum wage fails to see the connection between wages, prices, and inflation. Yes it points out that companies will raise their prices to maintain their profits, however this argument focuses just on the fast food chain. Prices are not set by companies, McDonald’s does not get to charge whatever they want for a hamburger. The price is set by what the market will allow. Consumers set the prices, not companies.

In economics there is something called a demand curve, it deals with the relationship between the price of a good and its effect on the demand for that good. Prices are set not just plucked out of the sky, but rather by finding the ideal point on the price demand curve, where profits are optimized, prices are as high as they can go without sacrificing demand. The question of course is how does this apply to raising the minimum wage, if prices are set by consumers, what is the big deal about raising the minimum wage?

Raising the minimum wage increases the cost of doing business, which adjusts where price must be in order to make a profit. More importantly, raising the minimum wage affects the demand side of the spectrum. Demand is based on how much a consumer is willing to pay for a product. If a consumer suddenly has their income doubled, they are suddenly willing to pay more for a product. Demand increases, the cost of doing business increases, thus prices increase. This price increase affects all of the country. It reduces all of our buying power, something that will be felt the most by those on the bottom, those making minimum wage.

So raising the minimum wage affects less than 1% of the overall population. It negatively affects this group of people because it reduces their purchasing power. So who is pushing for it, and why? If such a small percentage of the population is earning minimum wage, who is organizing them, who is pushing them to get out and protest, to demand an increase in wages? Well the answer is simple, the Unions and of course the Democrat Party.

Big Labor, aka the Unions, have been pouring tens of millions of dollars into the campaign for a $15.00 minimum wage. The S.E.I.U. has been a huge supporter of the $15.00 minimum wage. What does that have to do with anything? I mean isn’t it the job of Unions to increases wages for workers? Yes, but ultimately Unions now focus less on increasing workers wages, and more on acting as political action groups.

Unions are in trouble, they are slowly dwindling out of existence. In 1983 20.1% of all workers in the country were in a union, a number that has steadily been falling until now in 2014 only 11.1% of workers are unionized. So why is that important? Unions are funded through union dues. Workers have to pay money to the union to enjoy union benefits. The union the uses that money to act in the interest of the workers (well they are supposed to). With the number of union members slowly falling sense the 1980’s, that means the amount of money flowing into union coffers has been slowly falling. This means that the unions have been slowly losing power.

If you are a union employee the union losing power means that you are getting less for your investment. If you are a Democrat and the unions are losing power, that means it is getting harder for you to buy elections. Now I know that people are scoffing, how dare I accuse Democrats of purchasing elections, we all know that it is greedy Republicans who do that, because Harry Reid has told us how evil the Koch Brothers are. Well, it must be nice to have the media in your pocket, because it becomes easy to spin narratives. From 1989- 2014 of the top donor to campaigns has been Act Blue, a Democrat political action group. It is followed closely by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. In fact six of the top 10 donors from 1989- 2014 were unions. Wouldn’t you know it, the SEIU comes in at Number ten donating $32,252,379.6 (84% of donations) going to Democrats.

Again, I know the question sitting on the foaming lips of enraged progressives remains “what does this have to do with minimum wage?” Union wages and salaries are based on the minimum wage. If the minimum wage goes up, Union wages go up. Union wages go up, dues go up. Suddenly the Democrats interest in this makes a lot more sense. I understand now why the SEIU is such a big supporter of this. Almost doubling the baseline of their salaries, very tempting.

Now that you realize that, 4,600,000 million union members would see their wages go up, as well as the 2,992,000 who earn minimum wage, suddenly the number of people getting a wage increase is going up. Thus the negative affects of the artificial increase in wages is far greater than previously thought.

Suddenly the recent push to raising the minimum wage comes into perspective. It is not about helping fast food workers, it is about ensuring power for the Democrat party, It is about Unions flexing their ever diminishing strength. Raising the minimum wage will only help Democrats stay in power. Market forces will adjust prices out of the reach of those on minimum wage, bringing us back to square one.

Raising the minimum wage is a short term solution to a problem that does not really exist. Only 2.5% of hourly paid individuals over the age of 25 are actually earning minimum wage. This “problem” is just another in a long line of progressives “you are a victim” campaign of division. It is a pathetic ploy intended to pad the pockets of Democrat donors.

The only long term option to helping people making minimum wage is to grow the economy, thus opening doors for them to climb out of poverty. This can only be done by getting government out of the way and allowing market forces to create opportunities for people to capitalize on. Pushing to raise the minimum wage is a political stunt, that will do nothing to help those earning minimum wage.

The other day I was watching coverage of the GOP Candidates in New Hampshire and I heard the Democrat’s dream candidate Jeb Bush make this comment, “I have a conservative record, probably the most effective conservative governor. I would match my record with anybody that’s thinking about running or any governor of the last 20 years. It’s an I’m-not-kidding conservative record, it’s one of results.” Poor Governor Bush, he has apparently not realized it yet, I am sure that progressives have.

Look, If you have to tell people that you are a conservative, if you have to constantly declare “I AM A CONSERVATIVE”, you are in serious trouble when it comes to being a Republican Candidate. If he wants to win the White House, he has to not only convince the conservatives in the GOP that he is in fact a conservative, he must then convince independents of the same thing come the general election. This is not going to happen if he has to tell people “I am a conservative”. His actions, his policies, must match what he says.

A candidate that must say “I am a Conservative” might well as not be one. More importantly has no business in running for the Republican Presidential Nomination.

look no one doubts the conservative credentials of serious contenders such as Senator Rand Paul, Senator Ted Cruz, or Governor Scott Walker. They are out telling people what they want to do, what a Cruz Presidency will mean, what a Paul Presidency will mean. They are talking about what they will do, and the people know that they are conservative voices. Governor Bush is doing no such thing, he sounds like Mitt Romney running around telling people that he is a conservative. I personally do not want another Mitt Romney, I would rather nominate a candidate that is going to win, not just give us a good show.

It is nothing personal against Jeb Bush, I am sure he is a good man, he might even make a good President, but we will never know because he does not stand a snow ball’s chance in Dixie of winning the White House. I do not want a candidate that is going to go out and give a good show. I do not want to see a candidate that is going to give it his all, and get our hopes up. I do not want to watch another Establishment candidate give a concession speech, and be forced to endure four more year of progressive wrought ruin and despair. We are playing for keeps, we are playing for the survival of our nation, and in this race there are no fancy silver medals for silver place.

If you are adamant that you do not want to see Hilary Clinton as President. If you are truly desperate to ensure that President Barack Obama does not get a third term, then pay attention to what I have to say. I am noticing a vary dangerous trend starting to appear once again. A narrative is being spun that threatens to lead to Hillary Clinton’s Coronation. A trend that was present in 2008, and 2012, a dangerous trend that progressives are ecstatic to see. One that I have been warning about sense before the 2012 primary. The media, even pundits at Fox News, are trying to per-ordain who will be the Republican Presidential Candidate. If you are a conservative, a true limited government conservative, if you are someone who is terrified of Hillary Clinton being President, you should be very, very concerned.

During the 2008 presidential cycle, the GOP had a very weak field to choose from. You had on one side a progressive “maverick” Senator John McCain, who was known for reaching a crossed the aisle, working with Democrats to get things done. In the middle you had moderate former Governor Mike Huckabee, a smooth talking pastor from Arkansas. Then on the relative right you had former Governor Mitt Romney (how sad was it that a moderate like Mitt Romney was the most conservative option). I still say to this day that Mitt Romney is too moderate to win the White House, however, in 2008 he might have stood a chance. He was clean spoken, unburdened by the fiasco of Obamacare, had executive experience, and was an inspiring political figure. Mitt Romney came into the 2008 primary season with a victory in the 2007 CPAC straw poll. He had the crucial conservative backing needed to win the White House, he was not trying to unseat a sitting president, he most likely would have won the 2008 Presidential race. Why didn’t he?

That is a great question, to which the answer is very simple. First of all, the pundits painted a picture of a GOP in collapse. The Bush Years were so terrible there was no way that a conservative Republican could possibly win the White House. This scared conservatives, they were scared of what would happen to this country if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama were elected. Then the pundits started pushing “the GOP has to run someone who can reach a crossed the aisle to appeal to moderates.” So rather than choosing a relatively strong candidate such as Mitt Romney, the pundits started pushing for progressive John McCain, the Maverick of The Senate, the only man who stood a prayer of winning the moderate vote, the only man who “Could Win the White House”. During the primary season Senator McCain enjoyed favorable coverage from both conservative and progressive pundits alike, Democrat supporters even seemed to fawn over him. So naturally, devoid of any creditable qualifications for the nomination, John McCain became the GOP front runner. His job became easy when Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney split the conservative vote, paving the way for McCain to become the first Republican to lose to President Barack Obama in 2008.

Progressives played an incredible game in 2008, they tricked the GOP into running the weakest candidate they had. Democrats actually managed to convince Republicans that they were trying to help them win elections. It is because of this idea of “we have to beat Barack Obama, we can’t worry about our principles. We just have to nominate someone who can win”, that Barack Obama became President of The United States.

We all know what the next year under President Barack Obama was like. In 2009 we saw the passage of the so called “Stimulus Bill” (commonly referred to in my writings as the Porkulus bill), and with it the federal deficit rise from $458,000,000,000.00 (billion) in 2008 to a staggering $1,413,000,000,000.00 (trillion) in 2009 (we would not see a deficit below a trillion dollars until sequester cuts in 2013). We saw General Motors bought by the federal government, money illegally stolen from bond holders to make Union pensions whole, all under the supposed threat that General Motors would go bankrupt and cease to exist. Ironically despite the government buy out, once the UAW was given 17.5% ownership of GM (ensuring that Union Contracts could not be re-negotiated during bankruptcy), General Motor’s filed for bankruptcy. Wouldn’t you know it, they are still making cars today.

The people had had enough. They said no more. Conservatives rose up, and told the government to take notice. The people told the thugs in D.C. we did not want this socialist agenda, and most importantly they did not want Obamacare. We all knew what all of this out of control spending, and massive expansion of government would mean, billions in new taxes. Hard economic times forced American’s to tighten their belts, while politicians spent our money like crazy. We had had enough, we were taxed enough already, thus the T.E.A. Party was born. We held tax day rallies all around the country, we marched on D.C. in a rally of unprecedented size.

Progressives in both parties knew what the TEA Party was, it was a threat to the power that big government granted them. They knew that the TEA Party was a new way forward, thus it had to be destroyed. President Obama belittled members of the TEA Party. CNN sent out news anchors to try and paint the TEA Party as radical wackos, something I can say for a fact they are not. We were labeled extremists, We were labeled radicals, and We were labeled as bigots. The truth was plain to see. The rallies were not violent, they were not dangerous, TEA Party members did not set fire to police cruisers, destroy public property, or leave utter devastation in their wake (see occupy Wall Street for some contrast). Despite their best efforts President Obama’s pets in the media, and terrified Establishment Republicans could not stop the TEA Party movement. The TEA Party lead the GOP to the largest transference of power in American History. In 2010 the Democrats lost 700 seats nation wide, because of the TEA Party movement.

Now that should have been a launch pad that would have led to the Progressive Movement’s ultimate and final defeat. 2012 should have seen the Tyrant of The Senate dethroned, and President Obama defeated. As we all know that did not happen. The ignorance of Establishment Republicans guaranteed President Barack Obama would keep the White House and Harry Reid would continue to stifle our republican form of government. Progressive pundits once again convinced Establishment Republicans to abandon the clear majority that had propelled them to victory in 2010, in favor of a losing strategy they had employed in 2008. They sent a moderate Mitt Romney up against an entrenched President. Why? Why did they send a weak candidate like Mitt Romney to combat President Obama? The answer is simple, progressive pundits did nothing but support him during the primary season. They would say things like “Mitt Romney is the GOP’s only real hope”, “Mitt Romney can win the independents, which the GOP has to do to win”. Guess what, the Establishment bought it hook line and sinker. I reported on my old blog that if Mitt Romney won the nomination, President Obama would win the election. God I hate being right all the time.

In 2007, Mitt Romney won CPAC, the GOP ran John McCain, and President Obama won. In 2011 Ron Paul won CPAC, the GOP ran Mitt Romney, President Obama won. It is time that the GOP stops listening to people like Bob Beckel, Lindsy Graham, and John McCain and start listening to the Conservative base of the party. It is time for the GOP to start listening to the people who want them to win, rather than the people who want them to lose. I will say this probably a thousand times before the the Primary is over, so let me make it painfully clear right now,

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CANNOT RUN A MODERATE AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON. IF YOU WANT TO STOP HILLARY, WE MUST NOMINATE A TRUE LIMITED GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVE TO FIGHT HER. DO NOT FALL FOR THE PROGRESSIVE TRAP OF “THE GOP HAS TO NOMINATE A MODERATE IF THEY WANT TO WIN”. DEMOCRATS DO NOT WANT REPUBLICANS TO WIN. SO THEY ARE GOING TO PUSH PEOPLE WHO WILL LOSE, AND DOWN PLAY PEOPLE WHO COULD WIN.

The Democrat party has no interest in sharing power with the Republicans. Understand that. I can already see Establishment Republicans, and progressive pundits preparing the narrative that they want to see. They are pushing for the Nomination of former governor Jeb Bush. They will begin creating the “its inevitable” narrative very soon. They have already begun laying its ground work. Special Report’s “Candidate Casino” never has a shortage of progressive/Democrat pundits who put big money on Jeb Bush, despite the fact that a huge portion of the GOP electorate say they will never vote for him.

Progressives will soon try and push real threats to Hilary Clinton such as Senator Rand Paul, Senator Ted Cruz, and Governor Scott Walker, to the side, claiming that they are second tier candidates. They will attack them without end, and prop up cannon fodder candidates like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush. Mark my words, if Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio wins the Nomination, Hillary Clinton will be free to skip her way to the White House. The media will eviscerate push overs like Bush and Rubio in a matter of months.

So Beware conservatives, a primary vote for Bush or Rubio is a vote for Hillary Clinton.

It is no secret that President Obama does not believe that he has to go to congress for anything. Congressional approval is a formality to him, it is nice to have, but not really important. The dethroned tyrant of the Senate, Harry Reid, created an environment that allowed President Obama to amass great power in the Executive Branch, under the guise of standing up for America when the House of Representatives would not act (ignoring of course the 300 some bills that Harry Reid would not allow to come to the floor for a vote in the Senate). Tuesday Congress reached a deal that will begin to tame the ravenous beast that is the Obama Administration.

We have all heard about President Obama’s desperate attempt to create a legacy item by striking a nuclear deal with Iran. This deal, in my personal opinion is less about American Security, and more about ensuring that President Obama will have a legacy achievement that people will look back on. He wants to be remembered as the man who brought Iran to the negotiating table. It does not matter if it was a success, he and his disciples will blame that its failure on whoever the next President is. Well the more that is found out about this deal, the more the international community is made uneasy. The more we find out about this so called deal the more the nation is put on high alert.

Naturally with this level of concern, the Congress, liberated from the ignorance and bigotry of Harry Reid, has seen fit to act. Their balls have finally dropped and the Congress of The United States is standing up to President Barack Obama. It’s only taken six and a half years. Tuesday April 14, 2015 Congress reached an agreement on a bill that would give them oversight on President Obama’s Iran Deal.

Now it should be made clear, that as always, when it became known that this piece of legislation was working its way through congress President Obama promised to Veto it. A bill that would limit his power, and restore the system of checks and balances to the government, clearly a threat, clearly going to be vetoed by President Obama. During a meeting with Obama Administration officials Secretary Kerry was adamant that congress not push any legislation at all. However, once it became clear that bill had a veto proof majority support President Obama issued a statement that sufficient changes had been made, and the President would sign the bill. One of the bill’s sponsors Senator Corker, announced that no such major changes had been made, and the bill passed the committee with a unanimous 19-0 vote.

This is the first time that we have seen President Obama forced to bend, to compromise, to act as an equal branch of government, rather than the totalitarian thug he thinks he should be. Congress has a right to oversee this deal, seeing as it talks about lifting sanctions issued by congress, meaning President Obama cannot just wave his hands and make them disappear. I am ecstatic to see congress finally standing up to the thug in the White House.